High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-01-28Writ petition disposed of with directions; peti...

Biju T. J. & Others v. Taluk Land Board, Thrissur; Tahsildar, Thrissur Taluk Office; Village Officer, Peechi, Thrissur District

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 2495 of 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Alexander Thomas, J.
Judgment Date: 2019-01-28
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of with directions: The 3rd respondent Village Officer shall consider and pass orders within one month on the requests of petitioners 2, 4 & 5 for acceptance of basic land tax in respect of Exts. P3, P6 & P8 and on petitioners 1 & 3 for mutation, transfer of registry, and acceptance of basic land tax in respect of Exts. P1 & P4, after hearing the petitioners. The court clarifies that if any ceiling proceedings are actually pending before the Taluk Land Board, such proceedings will not be prejudiced by mutation, registration, or tax acceptance if otherwise justified by facts and law and provided due procedure is followed.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions; petition allowed in part with mandamus-like directions to accept tax and mutate, subject to ceilings not being prejudiced and to be completed within one month.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Biju T. J., Santosh K.R., Unnikrishnan K.R., Sajitha Jayprakash, Christeen George

Respondents

Taluk Land Board, Thrissur (represented by Chairman)
Tahsildar, Thrissur Taluk Office
Village Officer, Peechi Village, Thrissur District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. V. M. Krishnakumar, Advocate
• Smt. P. R. Reena, Advocate

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, Sr. Govt. Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges the refusal of the Village Officer to accept basic land tax from petitioners whose properties have already been mutated. Petitioners 1 and 3 (and others) hold property covered by sale deeds and have paid or are due to pay basic land tax, yet the Village Officer declined to accept tax on the ground that land ceiling proceedings are pending before the Taluk Land Board in respect of the original declarant’s properties. The petitioners argue that pendency of ceiling proceedings, civil suits, or related recovery actions is not a valid bar to mutation, transfer of registry, or tax collection, a proposition supported by this Court in prior catena cases such as Tulasibhai v. State of Kerala and Nevin Raju v. S. Basheer. They rely on Sec. 3(3) and Sec. 5(2) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, and contend that the assignee or registered holder is liable to pay land tax and that mutation can be effected irrespective of pending ceiling actions, provided due process is observed. The petition seeks mandamus to accept basic land tax from petitioners, grant mutation in favor of the appropriate petitioners for Exts. P1–P4, and any other directions as fit, along with costs. The court observes that there are no statutory interdicts prohibiting mutation due to pendency of ceiling proceedings and issues directions accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 - Sec. 3(3) (definition of land holder)Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 - Sec. 5(2) (obligation to collect land tax)Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1 of 1964) - ceiling proceedingsKanam Tenancy Act, 1955 (XXIV of 1955)Transfer of Registry RulesKerala Land Tax Rules

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Mere pendency of civil suits, revenue recovery proceedings, or attachment proceedings is not sufficient to deny mutation or transfer of registry (cited as a guiding doctrine)
Assignee of a registered land holder stands in the shoes of the land holder under Sec. 3(3)(d) for purposes of liability to land tax
Ultra vires: refusal to accept basic land tax on the ground of pending ceiling proceedings is liable to be set aside if contrary to statutory provisions or established jurisprudence

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioners submit that they have valid sale deeds (Exts. P1, P3, P4, P6, P8) and that basic land tax has been or can be paid. Despite mutation in the names of petitioners 2, 4 & 5 (Exts. P3, P6, P8), the 3rd respondent Village Officer is refusing to accept basic land tax or to mutate for petitioners 1 & 3 on the ground that ceiling proceedings are pending before the Taluk Land Board. They rely on established jurisprudence (Tulasibhai; Nevin Raju) that pendency of such proceedings is not a valid bar to mutation or tax collection and argue there is no statutory prohibition in Transfer of Registry Rules or Kerala Land Tax Rules to prevent mutation. They seek a mandamus to compel acceptance of tax and mutation, and costs.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend there are pending ceiling proceedings before the Taluk Land Board in respect of the original declarant’s properties, which could affect mutation and tax handling. They argue that mutation and tax collection should be withheld to avoid prejudicing ceiling proceedings and rely on applicable statutes and rules governing ceiling orders, transfer of registry, and basic tax collection, requesting that the petition be rejected or restricted in scope pending finalization of ceiling matters.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Tulasibhai v. State of Kerala	2010 (4) KLT 215	Positive	Cited as part of a catena of rulings supporting the proposition that pendency of civil suits or related proceedings does not automatically bar mutation or transfer.
Nevin Raju v. S. Basheer & Others	2015 (3) KLJ 197	Positive	Similarly cited to reinforce that pendency of proceedings is not a sufficient ground to deny mutation or tax action.
WP(C) No. 25447/2018	(unpublished in body, Exhibit P9)	Mentioned Only	Referenced as Exhibit P9 (copy of judgment) but not central to the bench's reasoning in the main order.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Biju T. J. & Others v. Taluk Land Board, Thrissur; Tahsildar, Thrissur Taluk Office; Village Officer, Peechi, Thrissur District and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 8TH MAGHA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 2495 of 2019** ## **PETITIONERS:** |**1**|**BIJU.T.J., AGED 48 YEARS,**| |---|---| ||**S/O. JOSEPH, THADATHIL HOUSE, P.O. KANNARA,**| ||**THRISSUR DIST. , PIN-680 652.**| |**2**|**SANTHOSH K.R., AGED 35 YEARS,**| ||**S/O. RATNAKARAN, KARUMATHIL HOUSE, P.O. KANNARA,**| ||**THRISSUR DIST. PIN-680 652.**| |**3**|**UNNIKRISHNAN K.R., AGED 41 YEARS,**| ||**S/O. RATNAKARAN, KARUMATHIL HOUSE, P.O. KANNARA,**| ||**THRISSUR DIST. PIN-680 652.**| |**4**|**SAJITHA JAYAPRAKASH, AGED 39 YEARS,**| ||**W/O. JAYAPRAKASH, ODATTIL HOUSE, P.O. KANNARA,**| ||**THRISSUR DIST. PIN-680 652.**| |**5**|**CHRISTEEN GEORGE, AGED 30 YEARS,**| ||**W/O. AMAL M, MAKKOLIL HOUSE, MANJAKKUNNU,**| ||**THEKKUMPADAM, PATTIKKAD P.O, THRISSUR DIST.,**| ||**PIN-680 652**| ||**BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR, SMT.P.R.REENA**| ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**TALUK LAND BOARD,**| |---|---| ||**THRISSUR REP. BY CHAIRMAN,**| ||**(DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR), THRISSUR) PIN-680 003.**| |**2**|**TAHSILDAR**| ||**THRISSUR TALUK OFFICE, THRISSUR, PIN-680 003.**| |**3**|**VILLAGE OFFICER**| ||**PEECHI VILLAGE, PEECHI, THRISSUR DISTRICT.**| ## **SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------- ## W.P.(C)No.2495 of 2019 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 28[th] day of January, 2019 ## J U D G M E N T The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: " - _i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 3[rd] respondent to accept the basic tax from the petitioner's property covered by Ext.P1 to P6._ - _ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent to accept the application for mutation from the 1[st] and 3[rd] petitioners with regard to their property covered by Exts.P1 and P4 and effect mutation._ - _iii.Issue such other orders, writs or directions as are deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court._ - _iv.Award cost of this proceedings to the petitioners. "_ 2. Heard Smt.P.R.Reena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. Petitioners 1 to 5 herein own and possess the properties covered by Ext.P-1 registered sale deed No.2784/2012 dated 19.7.2012 of SRO, Ollukkara, Ext.P-3 registered sale deed No.2352/2010 dated 14.7.2010 of SRO, Ollukkara, Ext.P-4 registered sale deed No.4649/2011 dated 2.12.2011 of SRO, Ollukkara, Ext.P-6 registered sale deed No.551/1/2010 dated 17.2.2010 of SRO, Ollukkara and Ext.P-8 registered sale deed W.P.(C).No.2495/2019 **==> picture [19 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** No.1712/2011 dated 19.4.2011 of SRO, Ollukkara respectively. The respective properties of petitioners 2, 4 & 5 as per Exts.P-3, P-6 & P-8 registered sale deeds have been duly mutated in the name of those respective petitioners and basic land tax has also been received from those respective petitioners in respect of the subject property covered by those respective deeds, it is averred. However, that inspite of the mutation and transfer of registry granted in favour of the petitioners 2, 4 & 5 as aforestated, the 3[rd] respondent Village Officer is refusing to accept basic land tax from those petitioners on the ground that land ceiling proceedings is pending before the 1[st] respondent Taluk Land Board, Thrissur, in respect of the properties of original declarant which is also alleged to be related to the present properties of the petitioners etc. Further the complaint of the petitioners is that the 3[rd] respondent is refusing even to mutate as well as to accept basic land tax from petitioners 1 & 3 in respect of properties covered by Exts.P-1 & P-4 registered sale deeds, citing the very same ground as aforestated. 4. It is asserted by the petitioners that on their enquiries it W.P.(C).No.2495/2019 **==> picture [19 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** has been disclosed to them that their respective properties covered by Exts.P-1, P-3, P-4, P-6 & P-8 registered sale deeds have nothing to do with any ceiling proceedings said to be pending with the 1[st] respondent Taluk Land Board, Thrissur and that the subject properties of those ceiling proceedings are in relation to certain other properties which are adjacent to the properties of the petitioners. Without getting into the merits of the controversy, it is now well established by a catena of rulings of this Court as in _**Tulasibhai v. State of Kerala [2010 (4) KLT 215], Nevin Raju v. S.Basheer & others [2015 (3) KLJ 197] etc**_ that mere pendency of civil suits, revenue recovery proceedings, attachment proceedings, etc as in the instant one will not be sufficient justification for the competent revenue officials like Tahsildar, Village Officer, etc from granting transfer or registry, mutation etc in favour of the subject property as there are no provisions in the Transfer of Registry Rules or in the Kerala Land Tax Rules interdicting the competent revenue officials from granting mutation or transfer of registry on account of pendency of such civil suit etc. W.P.(C).No.2495/2019 **==> picture [18 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 5. Therefore even if ceiling proceedings under the Land Reforms Act, 1964 are pending before the 1[st] respondent Taluk Land Board in respect of the subject properties, it will not be sufficient legal ground for competent revenue officials like respondents 2 & 3 to mutate the subject properties and to collect basic land tax in respect of the said properties from land holders/petitioners. Sec.5(2) of the Kerala Land Tax Act mandates that the competent revenue officials like the Tahsildar, Village Officer etc are obliged in law to collect land tax from the land holders as understood in Sec.3(3). Sec.3(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 reads as follows. “ _Land holder means__ _(a)in relation to any land held by a cultivating tenant as defined in the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1 of 1964), such cultivating tenant;_ _(b)in relation to any land in the possession of a kanam tenant as defined in the Kanam Tenancy Act, 1955 (XXIV of 1955), such kanam tenant;_ _(c) in relation to any land which has not been surveyed and is not held by a cultivating tenant referred to in sub-clause (a), the proprietor of such land;_ _(d) in relation to any other land, the registered holder for the time being of such land, and includes his legal representatives and assigns and any person who under any law for the time being in force is liable for the payment of public revenue due in respect of the land held by him. ”_ 6. In the instant case, the petitioners have purchased the W.P.(C).No.2495/2019 **==> picture [19 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** properties as per the above said 5 registered sale deeds from the respective predecessor-in-interest. Therefore ordinarily in the scheme of things, where the registered land holder alienates or assigns the property, then the assignee of the registered land holder will stand in the shoe of the “land holder” as understood in Sec.3(3)(d) and going by the cumulative mandate of Sec.5(2) read with Sec.3(3), the competent revenue officials are obliged to collect land tax from the land holders concerned as understood in Sec.3(3). Accordingly it is ordered and declared that the refusal on the part of the 3[rd] respondent Village Officer to accept basic land tax from the petitioners on the purported ground that land ceiling proceedings are pending as against the subject property, etc is illegal and ultra vires. The matter will stand remitted to the 3[rd] respondent Village Officer, who will consider the request of the 2[nd] , 4[th] & 5[th] petitioners for acceptance of basic land tax in respect of the properties covered by Exts.P- 3, 6 & 8 and will also consider the request of the 1[st] & 3[rd] petitioners for mutation, transfer of registry and acceptance of basic land tax in respect of the properties covered by Exts.P-1 & 4 and after affording reasonable W.P.(C).No.2495/2019 **==> picture [18 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** opportunity of being heard to them will grant the said request if it is otherwise in order. Orders in this regard should be duly passed by the 3[rd] respondent Village Officer without much delay preferably within a period of 1 month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. However it is made clear that in case any ceiling proceedings are actually pending before the Taluk Land Board in respect of the subject properties, then grant of mutation, transfer of property and acceptance of basic land tax in respect of the subject properties will not in any manner prejudice such proceedings, if it is otherwise justified on facts and law and provided the due procedure thereof is also strictly followed. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of. Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE MMG ..8.. W.P.(C).No.2495/2019 ## **APPENDIX** ||**APPENDIX**|| |---|---|---| |**PETITIONERS' **|**EXHIBITS:**|| |**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED **|**NO.**| ||**2784/2012** **DATED** **19.07.2012**|**OF**| ||**OLLUKKARA SUB REGISTRY**|| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT**|**FOR**| ||**THE YEAR 2011 DATED 10.06.2011**|| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED **|**NO.**| ||**2352/2010 DATED 14.07.2010**|| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED **|**NO.**| ||**4649/2011 DATED 02.12.2011.**|| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT**|| ||**DATED 19.03.2010**|| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED **|**NO.**| ||**551/1/2010** **DATED** **17.02.2010**|**OF**| ||**OLLUKKARA SUB REGISTRY.**|| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT**|**FOR**| ||**THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 28.06.2011**|| |**EXHIBIT P8**|**TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED **|**NO.**| ||**1712/2011** **DATED** **19.04.2011**|**OF**| ||**OLLUKKARA SUB REGISTRY.**|| |**EXHIBIT P9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)**|**NO.**| ||**25447/2018 DATED 30.7.2018**|| |**EXHIBIT P10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED**|**IN**| ||**2010 KHC 6224**|| |**EXHIBIT P11**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED**|**IN**| ||**2009(2) KHC 602**||